ORE Open Research Exeter - Open Research Exeter ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ORE Open Research Exeter
TITLE
Self-regulatory goal motivational processes in sustained New Year resolution pursuit and mental
wellbeing
AUTHORS
Dickson, JM; Moberly, N; Preece, D; et al.
JOURNAL
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DEPOSITED IN ORE
18 March 2021
This version available at
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/125158
COPYRIGHT AND REUSE
Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies.
A NOTE ON VERSIONS
The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of
publicationInternational Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Self-Regulatory Goal Motivational Processes in Sustained New
Year Resolution Pursuit and Mental Wellbeing
Joanne M. Dickson 1, * , Nicholas J. Moberly 2 , David Preece 3 , Alyson Dodd 4 and Christopher D. Huntley 5
1 Psychology Division, School of Arts & Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup 6027, Australia
2 Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK; n.j.moberly@exeter.ac.uk
3 School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley 6102, Australia; david.preece@curtin.edu.au
4 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK; alyson.dodd@northumbria.ac.uk
5 Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK;
C.Huntley@liverpool.ac.uk
* Correspondence: j.dickson@ecu.edu.au; Tel.: +61-8-63942711
Abstract: Recent research suggests people typically “give up” pursuing their New Year resolutions
within the first month. The present study investigated goal features proposed to be implicated in
promoting both mental wellbeing and sustained New Year resolution pursuit. Australian and UK
participants (n = 182) took part in an online longitudinal study, including four timepoints over a
two-month period. At baseline, participants listed the New Year resolution to which they were
most committed, and completed self-report measures to assess mental wellbeing, goal flexibility and
tenacity. At the follow-up surveys, participants completed the wellbeing measure and their New Year
resolution commitment, effort and stickability. As predicted, flexibility predicted wellbeing across
time, however, tenacity did not. Counter to prediction, neither flexibility nor tenacity reported at
Citation: Dickson, J.M.; Moberly,
baseline predicted “sticking” with one’s New Year resolution. The predicted interaction between
N.J.; Preece, D.; Dodd, A.; Huntley,
flexibility and tenacity was not significant. New Year resolutions focused predominantly on “diet”
C.D. Self-Regulatory Goal
and “exercise” were predominantly the same resolutions previously pursued and tended to be
Motivational Processes in Sustained
New Year Resolution Pursuit and
relatively abstract. Although goal flexibility predicted greater wellbeing, the findings overall tend to
Mental Wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. support the view that people are not particularly good at sticking with their New Year resolutions.
Public Health 2021, 18, 3084. https:// Implications of the findings are discussed.
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063084
Keywords: wellbeing; New Year resolutions; flexible goal adjustment; goal flexibility; goal tenacity;
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou New Year resolution “stickability”; New Year resolution goal characteristics; self-regulation
Received: 3 March 2021
Accepted: 15 March 2021
Published: 17 March 2021 1. Introduction
Personal goal striving is fundamental to human experience and drives much everyday
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
human behaviour. It promotes positive adaptations in life and psychological wellbeing,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
even when goal pursuit is not successful [1]. Personal goals are defined as cognitive
published maps and institutional affil-
representations of desired future outcomes that involve striving toward the positive out-
iations.
come [2]. One form of goal pursuit that has received little empirical attention are New
Year resolutions. Yet, as each New Year is welcomed in across the globe a common activity
many individuals engage in is the setting of New Year resolutions. The New Year offers
an opportunity for people to take stock, to reflect on the past year and to set resolutions
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
they wish to pursue in the coming year. As with personal goals, New Year resolutions
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
typically require people to take goal-congruent actions, to sustain pursuit in the face of
This article is an open access article
setbacks and obstacles, whilst resisting the pull of competing goals to achieve the desired
distributed under the terms and
outcome(s). The scant research undertaken in this area suggests that people tend not to
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
“stick” to their New Year’s resolutions beyond a few weeks [3]. Relatively little is known
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
about specific goal mechanisms that may sustain New Year resolution striving and promote
4.0/). subjective wellbeing over time. Here, for the first time, we aim to examine two specific New
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063084 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerphInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 2 of 13
Year resolution-related mechanisms (i.e., goal flexibility and goal tenacity) that may be
implicated both in mental wellbeing and the ability to stick to one’s New Year resolutions
(i.e., the ability to keep striving towards the resolution outcome).
Goal flexibility refers to the ability to view setbacks with equanimity and adjust goal
pursuit as required, whereas goal tenacity is defined as persistence in striving to reach a
desired goal outcome under difficult conditions [4]. Goal theorists posit that flexible goal
adjustment is integral to maintaining a sense of well-being [5,6]. There is often more than
one way to reach a desired outcome when difficulties arise. One may flexibly switch to
an alternative means to pursuing the same goal [7], or one may switch to a new goal that
serves the same superordinate goal as the original goal [8]. Hence, the ability to be flexible,
to adjust to setbacks and to create alternative striving strategies as required should be
advantageous for facilitating a sustained pursuit of New Year resolutions and maintaining
a sense of wellbeing, which this study aims to investigate. In contrast, inflexible goal
processes are thought to give rise to psychological difficulties [9,10], and are apt to hinder an
effective New Year resolution pursuit. For instance, research has consistently characterised
depression in terms of inflexible conditional goal setting [5,6,11]. Theoretically, inflexible
pursuit in the face of an unattainable goal is hypothesised to lead to a downward spiral of
negative self-criticism, self-evaluation and depressive symptoms [10].
In sharp contrast to goal flexibility, less research has investigated goal tenacity, which
has been defined as persistence [12]. Arguably, persistence is likely to provide the necessary
impetus and drive required to sustain New Year resolution pursuit in the face of difficulties
and obstacles. While the construct of goal tenacity may overlap with other constructs such
as grit, goal tenacity and goal flexibility are focused specifically on coping with setbacks
to goal pursuit through action regulation [12]. The interplay between goal tenacity and
goal flexibility is also thought to be adaptive for goal pursuit, and this was of particular
interest in this study. The few studies that have investigated a tenacious goal pursuit and
goal flexibility in relation to wellbeing have used older adult populations. This research
suggests that goal flexibility and tenacity each independently predict wellbeing [12,13].
However, no studies have examined a goal tenacity or flexibility in relation to one’s ability
to stick to New Year resolutions.
According to Brandtstädter and colleagues (1990), key life transitions activate two
distinct but complementary modes of coping with obstacles, which represent “assimilative”
(i.e., transforming developmental circumstances in accordance with personal preferences)
and “accommodative” (i.e., adjusting personal preferences to situational concerns) ten-
dencies [13]. These “assimilative” and “accommodative” tendencies are measured by two
independent goal scales, tenacious goal pursuit (TGP) and flexible goal pursuit (FGP). Both
scales have been shown to independently predict high life satisfaction and low depression,
and to be positively related to generalised internal control beliefs [13]. A longitudinal
cohort study, in an aging population, found that flexible and tenacious goal pursuit each
independently predicted subjective wellbeing (SWB), and the interaction between flexibility
and tenacity significantly predicted increased positive changes, such that more flexible
and tenacious individuals reported the largest decreases in symptoms of depression, hos-
tility and physical ill-health [12,14]. However, decreases in depressive symptoms are not
synonymous with mental wellbeing. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO)
wellbeing is more than the absence of psychological distress [15].
Here, for the first time, we aim to investigate whether goal flexibility and tenacity
each, independently, predict increased wellbeing and sustained New Year resolution goal
pursuit (i.e., New Year resolution “stickability”) using Australian and the UK community
samples. Next, we aim to investigate whether the interactive effects of goal flexibility and
goal tenacity will make an additional contribution to predicting wellbeing and sustained
New Year resolution “stickability”.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 3 of 13
Predictions
First, we predicted that goal flexibility and goal tenacity, measured at baseline, would
each significantly and independently predict higher levels of mental wellbeing over time.
Next, we predicted that the interactive association of goal flexibility and goal tenacity would
predict further increases in mental wellbeing over time. In relation to sustained New Year
resolution pursuit, we predicted that goal flexibility and goal tenacity, at baseline, would
each significantly and independently predict sustained New Year resolution “stickability”.
Finally, we predicted that the interaction between these constructs would be associated
with sustained New Year resolution pursuit over time.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
To test our hypotheses an online longitudinal study was conducted over a two-month
period. All participants commenced the study at or after the New Year but within the
first month of the study (January). Baseline measures administered at Time 1 (T1) were
followed by three subsequent surveys, with a two-week interval between T1 and Time 2
(T2), and T2 and Time 3 (T3). Literature suggests that most people abandon their New Year
resolutions within the first month [3]. Therefore, we included a 4-week interval between
T3 (end of the first month) and Time 4 (T4) to ascertain whether those participants still
pursuing their most important resolution at T3 were doing so at the end of the following
month (T4, end of the second month). A priori sample size calculations were conducted to
determine the minimum sample size required for hierarchical regression-based analyses.
For a desired statistical power of 0.8, an anticipated medium effect size for model fit and
probability level set at 0.05, a minimum sample size of 84 is required. Given an anticipated
dropout rate of 50% from Time 1 to Time 4, a minimum sample of 168 was required at
Time 1.
2.2. Participants
The total sample comprised 182 participants recruited from community and university
samples in Australia (n = 144) and the United Kingdom (UK; n = 38). There were 147 females
(80.8%), 31 males (17.0%), 3 participants reported “other” (1.6%) and 1 participant did not
report their gender (0.5%). The proportion of females and males did not differ significantly
across the four time points (p’s > 0.05). However, the proportion of males and females
was significantly different across the Australian and UK samples (χ2 (1) = 4.72, p = 0.030),
with a higher percentage of females in the Australian sample (86.2%) than in the UK
sample (68.4%). Ages ranged from 18 to 77 years for the total sample, with a mean age
of 37.12 years (SD = 14.50). There was a significant difference in mean age (t(177) = 3.53,
p < 0.001), with Australian participants (Mage = 35.20; SD = 13.79) being younger than their
UK counterparts (Mage = 44.26; SD = 15.00).
One hundred and sixty-one participants completed T1, 92 participants completed T2,
65 participants completed T3 and 54 participants completed T4.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. New Year Resolution Task
New Year Resolution Task (adapted from Dickson and Moberly, 2010) [16]: to elicit
subjectively meaningful New Year resolutions at T1, participants were asked to think about
their New Year resolutions, and to select the “one” resolution to which they were most
committed. Participants were instructed that this resolution should be specific enough
that they would know whether they were successfully sticking to their resolution over
the coming weeks. Participants reported a short single written statement to list their most
meaningful New Year resolution to which they were most committed.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 4 of 13
2.3.2. Tenacious Goal Pursuit and Flexible Goal Attainment Scale (TEN/FLEX)
TEN/FLEX [17]: this measure comprises two subscales and was administered at T1
to assess tenacious goal pursuit (TGP; e.g., “When faced with obstacles, I usually double
my efforts”) and flexible goal adjustment (FGA; e.g., “In general, I am not upset very
long about a missed opportunity”). The TGP comprises 15 items (with 9 reverse-scored
items) and the FGA comprises 15 items (with 4 reverse-scored items). Participants rate
each item on a scale ranging from −2 (“strongly disagree”) to +2 (“strongly agree”), but
when scoring, items are scored from 1 to 5 respectively. TGP and FGA subscale scores can
range from 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating greater goal tenacity and higher goal
flexibility, respectively. Cronbach’s alphas in the original development paper were 0.80
(TGP) and 0.83 (FGA). The present study showed acceptable and comparable reliabilities,
with Cronbach’s α = 0.83 for the TGP and α = 0.80 for the FGA.
2.3.3. Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWS)
Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWS) [18]: this measure was ad-
ministered at each time point (T1-T4) and comprises 14-items to assess mental wellbeing
(e.g., “I’ve been feeling interested in other people”). Item statements are rated on a scale
ranging from 1 (“none of the time”) to 5 (“all of the time”). Total scores can range from 14
to 70, where higher scores indicate greater wellbeing. The measure has been extensively
validated, with high test–retest reliability and an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.91)
in a population sample. In the present study the dependent variable WEMWS showed
acceptable and comparable reliabilities ranging from α = 0.93 to α = 0.95 across the four
time points.
2.3.4. Longitudinal Goal Ratings
In addition to the WEMWS measure, participants rated three items applied to their
represented New Year resolution at each time point from T2 through to T4. These included,
item 1, commitment (i.e., “To what extent are you still committed to this resolution?”), item
2, stickability (i.e., “In the last two weeks how successful have you been in sticking to this
resolution?”), item 3, effort (“i.e., In the last two weeks, to what extent have you put effort
into sticking to this resolution?”). Each item was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(“not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”). Based on the significant positive correlations and large
effects (ranging from r = 0.58 to 0.73) between the three New Year resolution goal items
we combined the commitment, effort and stickability items to form one variable, “Goal
Stickability”. Cronbach’s alpha for this aggregated variable was 0.86 at T2, 0.87 at T3 and
0.88 at T4.
We also included an additional item (Item 1a) to ascertain whether participants had
abandoned their resolution (i.e., “If you have abandoned this resolution, please provide
a brief reason why here (open text box)”). Eight participants reported that they had
abandoned their New Year resolution at T2, six participants had abandoned their resolution
at T3 and seven participants at T4. The most reported reason for abandoning the New Year
resolution was a change in priorities or circumstances (e.g., due to have a baby).
2.4. Procedure
Edith Cowan University and Exeter University Psychology Research Ethics Commit-
tees approved the study. Following ethics approval, the longitudinal study was adminis-
tered online via a Qualtrics survey at four time points. All participants provided informed
consent before participating in the study. At T1 participants completed the demographic
items, listed the New Year resolution to which they were most committed and completed
associated items (identified in the following paragraph), and the self-report goal flexibility
and goal tenacity, and wellbeing questionnaires. In the follow up surveys (T2, T3 and T4)
participants completed the longitudinal New Year resolution items (commitment, effort
and stickability) and the wellbeing measure (WEMWS).Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 5 of 13
At baseline (T1) we included items to check whether participants had decided on their
New Year resolution prior to the survey: (i) “had you decided on this New Year resolution
before beginning this survey?” and whether they had the same resolution in previous years
(ii) “have you had this New Year resolution in previous years?”. Most participants reported
that they had decided on the listed New Year resolution prior to commencing the survey
(n = 134; 73.2%), while almost a quarter of the sample (n = 43, 23.5%) reported that their
resolution was “partially” decided prior to the survey, and only five participants (2.7%)
reported not having decided upon their listed resolution prior to the survey. Nearly a
quarter of participants reported they had this same resolution in previous years (n = 44,
24.0%), nearly a third of participants (n = 53, 29.0%) reported they partially had the same
resolution in previous years, while almost half of the participants had selected a new
resolution (n = 85, 46.4%), with one participant not responding (0.5%). We also checked
participants’ assessments of their “commitment” and “importance” of their resolution at
baseline (T1). Based on 7-point scales from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”), participants
were strongly committed to their resolution (M = 5.94, SD = 0.97) and considered it very
important to stick to their resolution (M = 6.03, SD = 1.05). In summary, at baseline, most
participants had previously set, or partially set, the same resolution in previous years and
had decided on their resolution prior to taking part in the study. Participants reported
high commitment to the resolution listed and rated highly the importance of sticking to the
listed resolution. Participants also reported that it was unlikely that they would abandon
their New Year resolution when faced with a setback (M = 2.29, SD = 1.44), which was
rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”).
We coded each listed New Year resolution for (i) orientation, (ii) specificity and (iii)
content. Each resolution was coded as either approach or avoidance oriented. An approach
resolution is focused on a desired outcome and involves striving toward the positive
outcome (e.g., “I will eat healthily”), whereas an avoidance resolution is focused on an
undesired outcome and involves trying to prevent or inhibit the negative outcome (e.g., “I
will avoid fatty foods”). Most participants listed resolutions that were approach oriented
(88.7%), whereas only 11.3% listed resolutions that were avoidance oriented. These moti-
vational orientation findings are consistent with previous research using community and
university samples [16]. Although, this pattern was further amplified for those participants
who completed all four time points, with 96% of completers having listed approach res-
olutions, relative to only 4% of completers having listed avoidance oriented resolutions.
Inter-rater reliability yielded good reliability for the approach and avoidance resolutions
(K = 1).
A dichotomous coding scheme was used to categorise New Year resolution speci-
ficity [19]. A New Year resolution was described as “specific” if it described an explicit
aim or target feature and included at least one of the following specific aspects: time,
place or people (e.g., “to go for a 40-minute walk around the lake four times a week”).
A New Year resolution was described as “general” if it referred to a global or abstract
resolution (e.g., “to get fit”). At baseline, most New Year resolutions (64.6%) were described
in very broad or general terms and approximately one third were specific (35.4%). The
coding scheme yielded good inter-rater reliability (K = 1). New Year resolutions were also
categorised according to one of the following content domains: exercise, diet, academic
or skill development, mental wellbeing, bad habits, money or finances, leisure activity,
interpersonal relationships, work or occupation, a “cause” (e.g., environmental causes) and
time management. Over 50% of the resolutions listed focused on diet (29.0%), for example,
“Aim to lose 5 kg” and exercise (24.6%), for example, “30+ mins exercise 5 × per week”.
Inter-rater reliability was good (K = 1).
3. Results
No significant differences were found between the Australian and UK samples on any
of the main study variables (all p’s > 0.05). Therefore, subsequent regression analyses were
conducted on the total sample at each time point to test the hypotheses.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 6 of 13
Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s r correlations between the main study variables
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s r correlation between study variables.
Variable 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Mean (SD)
1. TGP 0.36 *** 0.30 *** 0.17 0.07 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.00 36.10 (10.27)
2. FGA - 0.52 *** 0.43 *** 0.48 *** 0.40 ** 0.10 0.10 0.19 35.90 (9.30)
3. T1 WEMWS - 0.60 *** 0.62 *** 0.76 *** 0.07 0.07 0.06 48.89 (9.81)
4. T2 WEMWS - 0.74 *** 0.55 *** 0.29 * 0.29 * 0.28 * 47.52 (9.13)
5. T3 WEMWS - 0.78 *** 0.24 0.24 0.31 * 48.55 (8.24)
6. T4 WEMWS - 0.21 0.21 0.31 * 48.77 (9.07)
7. T2 Stickability - 0.70 *** 0.54 *** 14.80 (4.27)
8. T3 Stickability - 0.72 *** 13.92 (4.87)
9. T4 Stickability - 14.46 (4.55)
Note: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001. T = Time; TGP = Tenacious Goal Pursuit; FGA = Flexible Goal Adjustment; WEMWS = Warwick–
Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.
As can be seen in Table 1, flexible goal adjustment was significantly and positively
associated with mental wellbeing (WEMWS) at each time point, showing medium to
large effects (r’s ranging from 0.40 to 0.52) but had no significant relationship with New
Year resolution “stickability” across time (p’s > 0.05). Tenacious goal pursuit correlated
significantly with wellbeing at T1 (r = 0.30), but counter to prediction did not correlate with
wellbeing at any other time point. Nor did tenacious goal pursuit correlate significantly
with New Year resolution “stickability” across time (p’s > 0.05). As can be seen in Table 1,
and as expected, wellbeing assessments were significantly correlated at each time point
(ranging from r = 0.55 to 0.78), as were New Year resolution “stickability” assessments
(ranging from r = 0.54 to 0.72). Age did not correlate significantly with any of the main
study variables (all p’s > 0.05). No significant gender differences were found on the main
study variables, except for flexible goal adjustment (t(155) = 2.09, p = 0.039), where males
(M = 38.94, SD = 7.42) reported greater goal flexibility than females (M = 35.19, SD = 9.58).
Prior to conducting our main analyses, dropout analyses were conducted, based upon
baseline assessments at Time 1, comparing participants who completed all phases of the
study against non-completers (see Table S1 in Supplementary Materials). There were no
significant differences between study completers and non-completers on baseline (Time 1)
goal tenacity (TGP), flexible goal adjustment (FGA), mental wellbeing (WEMH) or the
proportion of males and females in each sample, suggesting that our predictors were
not confounded with dropout from the study. However, study completers were signifi-
cantly older than non-completers (MCompleters = 43.10, SD = 15.46 vs. MNon-completers = 34.98,
SD = 13.58; t(176) = −3.41, p = 0.001).
Given that some participants reactivated or partially reactivated previous resolutions,
whilst others selected new resolutions, we also examined if there were any differences
between these groups on the main study variables at baseline. No significant differences
were found between these groups on TGP, FGA, WEMWS nor on age or gender (all
p’s > 0.05).
Unfortunately, sample sizes obtained at each time point precluded the use of more
advanced longitudinal analyses, such as latent growth curve modelling. More pertinently,
the aim of this study was not the examination of change over time (as in latent growth
modelling) but examining predictors of mental wellbeing and New Year resolution goal
stickability at different time intervals. Therefore, to test our main hypotheses, we con-
ducted hierarchical regression analyses to investigate if tenacious and flexible goal pursuit
assessed at baseline (T1) each independently predicted wellbeing and New Year resolution
“stickability”, respectively, across time, while controlling for participant gender. The re-
gression analyses also tested whether the interaction between goal tenacity and flexibility
made an additional contribution to wellbeing and sustained New Year resolution pursuit
(i.e., goal stickability). In the regression model, gender, TGP and FGA were entered onInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 7 of 13
Step 1, and the interaction term between TGP and FGA was entered on Step 2. Regression
results are presented in Tables 2 and 3 below. To control for multiple tests at each time
point, we applied a Bonferroni correction, with the predictor variables considered signif-
icant predictors if probability falls below 0.0125 (i.e., 0.05/4) when predicting wellbeing
(WEMWS) across four time points, and below 0.0167 (i.e., 0.05/3) when predicting goal
stickability across three time points.
As shown in Table 2, and as predicted, flexible goal adjustment independently, and
significantly predicted wellbeing at Times 1–3, and approached significance at Time 4
(p = 0.017). Counter to prediction, tenacious goal pursuit did not predict wellbeing at any
time point. As shown in Table 3, FGA predicted goal stickability at Time 2, but not at Time
3 and 4. Counter to prediction, TGP did not predict sustained New Year resolution goal
stickability at any time point, nor did the interaction between goal flexibility and tenacity
significantly predict wellbeing or New Year resolution stickability.
Additional supplementary regression analyses were conducted based upon the model
discussed above (i.e., gender, TGP, FGA and the interaction term TGP × FGA were included
on the same steps) to examine if baseline “commitment” and “stickability importance” of
New Year’s resolutions predicted wellbeing and goal stickability over time, respectively
(see Supplementary Materials, Tables S2 and S3). Based on Bonferroni corrections, neither
baseline commitment nor New Year resolution importance predicted wellbeing at any time
point. Commitment predicted New Year resolution stickability at Time 3 but not at Time 2
or 4, while importance did not predict stickability at any time point. Next, we examined
if the New Year resolution orientation (i.e., approach vs. avoidance) and specificity (i.e.,
specific vs. general) predicted wellbeing and sticking to one’s resolution over time. Neither
resolution orientation nor specificity predicted wellbeing or stickability at any time point
(see Supplementary Materials, Tables S4 and S5).Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 8 of 13
Table 2. Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment as predictors of T1 to T4 wellbeing.
T1 WEMWS (n = 156) T2 WEMWS (n = 88) T3 WEMWS (n = 64) T4 WEMWS (n = 53)
95% 95% 95% 95%
Variable β b (SE) t p β b (SE) t p β b (SE) t p β b (SE) t p
CIs CIs CIs CIs
1.04 −2.30, −0.93 −5.72, 0.88 −4.45, 1.42 −5.11,
Gender 0.04 0.61 0.541 −0.04 −0.39 0.701 −0.04 0.33 0.743 0.06 0.44 0.663
(1.69) 4.38 (2.41) 3.86 (2.66) 6.21 (3.25) 7.95
T1 0.11 −0.02, 0.07 −0.13, −0.01 −0.21, 0.14 −0.12,
0.13 1.69 0.094 0.07 0.69 0.495 −0.01 −0.09 0.929 0.14 1.09 0.283
TGP (0.07) 0.25 (0.10) 0.27 (0.10) 0.20 (0.13) 0.40
T1 0.47 0.32, 0.44 0.23, 0.47 0.25, 0.39 0.07,
0.47 6.16Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 9 of 13
4. Discussion
We aimed to investigate whether goal flexibility, goal tenacity and their interaction
at baseline each independently predicted greater wellbeing and sustained New Year reso-
lution pursuit. As expected, preliminary correlations showed that wellbeing assessments
were positively correlated across time, as were resolution “stickability” assessments. As
predicted, goal flexibility at baseline predicted wellbeing over time but counter to predic-
tion it did not predict sticking to one’s New Year resolution. Counter to prediction, goal
tenacity, at baseline, predicted neither wellbeing nor sustained New Year resolution pursuit
over time. Nor did the interaction between flexibility and tenacity significantly predict
enhanced wellbeing or resolution stickability. Participants’ self-generated New Year resolu-
tions were mostly approach oriented, tended to focus on “diet” and “exercise”, had been
set at least partially in previous years, and tended to be described in very general terms.
4.1. Goal Flexibility
The fact that goal flexibility predicted wellbeing across time supports our hypothesis
and is consistent with past research [13,14]. The findings lend support to the view that
flexible goal adjustment and one’s capacity to view difficulties with composure and a
degree of detachment augments the ability to adapt one’s approach to life situations when
required, which in turn promotes wellbeing [11]. Enhanced goal flexibility promotes
wellbeing as it allows people to meet personal and societal expectations by adjusting to
life’s ever-changing constraints and opportunities, and to feel more autonomous in relation
to the self and the future [20].
Although New Year resolutions represent a form of personal goal setting, they may
differ from conventional goals because they are more often set and pursued in a social
context, given the cultural emphasis on New Year resolutions in Western cultures. Hence,
they may be more externally regulated and more difficult to pursue than other goals.
Research indicates that more internally regulated goals are associated with increases in
positive wellbeing, and as such are more likely to assist sustained goal pursuit [21,22].
However, without direct measures to assess the underlying reasons for New Year resolution
pursuit, the role of external versus internal regulation in New Year resolution pursuit
remains unclear. It would be useful for future research to address this issue.
Further, the TEN/FLEX flexible goal adjustment measure did not differentiate between
people’s ability, when resolution pursuit is difficult, to choose alternative means to fulfil
the resolution or to abandon the resolution altogether in favour of more fruitful pursuits.
These tendencies may pull in opposite directions in terms of the stickability of New Year
resolutions, such that their net association is near negligible.
4.2. Goal Tenacity
In contrast to previous research [13,14], and counter to prediction, goal tenacity at
baseline did not independently predict greater wellbeing throughout the study. Nor did it
predict sustained New Year resolution pursuit. Developmental differences might partly
explain the present non-significant findings, as past research has predominantly focused on
older adults [13,14]. For instance, older individuals may rely more on personal tenacity to
maintain their sense of wellbeing, relative to younger individuals. Participants in this study
were predominantly middle-aged. It may be that people within this age group have more
competing goals and demands, and fewer resources (e.g., time and money) to stick to their
New Year resolutions. The lack of significant findings may also relate to the measure itself.
While goal tenacity has been defined by “persistence”, it could be argued there is a fine line
between “persistent” tenacity and “rigid” tenacity. For instance, it is possible that tenacity
taps into a form of goal inflexibility. If so, this may in part account for the non-significant
findings in relation to tenacity and wellbeing, and tenacity and the sustained pursuit of
New Year resolutions. Arguably, rigidity and inflexibility are likely to make it more difficult
to adjust or adapt a resolution in the face of difficulty or in response to lack of progress, or it
could lead to “all-or-nothing” thinking such that a goal is abandoned rather than adjusted.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 10 of 13
Past research also suggests that goal tenacity may be associated with psychopathology and
perfectionism, particularly if someone continues to pursue goals that are unrealistic and
unattainable [21]. Further, several studies have associated goal inflexibility with a range
of psychological disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety) and maladaptive psychological
mechanisms such as negative rumination [5,23,24].
4.3. New Year Resolution Characteristics
The coding categorisation for content found that more than half the sample listed
either a “diet” or “exercise” New Year resolution and just over half the sample reported
having had the same or a similar resolution in the past year. Together these findings suggest
that people’s New Year resolutions often reflect cyclical goals that are “rebooted” each
New Year. Speculatively, this circularity may indicate that people choose past resolutions
because they are difficult, and hence fail to stick to them in the current year. Further, most
participants in the present study listed very general or abstract resolutions, which arguably
renders sustained New Year resolution pursuit more difficult. Setting specific New Year
resolutions is more likely to suggest the necessary strategies and plans to aid sustained and
successful pursuit and to promote wellbeing, relative to abstract or vague resolutions [19].
Goals are hierarchically organised with abstract superordinate resolutions represent-
ing what people ultimately value and aspire to [2,25–27]. New Year resolutions are also
likely to be hierarchically organised and interconnected with other goals and, consequently,
may facilitate or hinder other pursuits [28]. Future research could usefully examine whether
linking people’s more abstract resolutions to more concrete lower order resolutions facil-
itate sustained New Year resolution pursuit and enhanced wellbeing over time. Except
for a recent article published by Höchli and colleagues in 2020 [29], little research has
investigated how superordinate and subordinate goals influence and interact with each
other to support New Year resolution pursuit. For example, if the New Year resolution
“to lose 5 kg in weight” is consistent with superordinate goals, such as beliefs about one’s
personal health or appearance, or vice versa, then this is likely to aid sustained motivation.
Future research could examine whether explicitly linking superordinate and subordinate
goals and plans improves New Year resolution sustainability and wellbeing.
4.4. Methodological Considerations
A few methodological considerations deserve comment. There was a sizable attrition
rate from baseline to the final survey (T4). This attrition rate is consistent with past literature,
which indicates that people typically “give up” pursuing their New Year resolutions within
the first month [3]. However, in the present study there were no significant differences
between study completers and non-completers on the key baseline measures (goal tenacity,
goal flexibility and mental wellbeing). Thus, the central variables investigated in this study
do not seem to be confounded with successful completion of the study, which suggests that
it is possible to generalise the study results despite the high attrition rate. The sample size
was not sufficient to use multilevel modelling to investigate different resolutions within
individuals to examine characteristics of resolutions that predict stickability within persons,
and may have led to reduced power to detect main effects and interactions. Future research
using larger samples could usefully include more covariates to differentiate goal flexibility
and goal tenacity from neighbouring constructs (e.g., optimism, neuroticism and grit). The
supplementary analyses did not change the significant and non-significant results reported
in the main text. Although including the covariates “commitment” and “importance”
at baseline did not change the significant and non-significant findings over time, these
supplementary analyses were underpowered due to the small sample sizes. Future research
may benefit from the use of incentives (e.g., prize draws) to increase potential sample sizes.
The self-report nature of the study is a limitation and social desirability may have inflated
associations between goal flexibility and wellbeing, but the null findings between goal
tenacity and wellbeing tend to counter this possibility. Although we asked participants toInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 11 of 13
rate the subjective stickability of their resolutions, future research could usefully investigate
more objective measures of success in resolution pursuit.
Overall, our results tend to support the view that people are not particularly good
at sticking to their New Year resolutions. This is despite participants initially reporting
high importance of and commitment to the resolution and the belief that they would
stick to their resolution even in the face of obstacles and difficulties. Although our results
showed positive associations between goal flexibility and wellbeing, there was no direct
relationship between goal flexibility and sticking to one’s New Year resolution. Given the
high proportion of resolutions that were reported to be the same, or almost the same, as
those set in a previous year, it appears that people readily disengage behaviourally from
pursuing their New Year resolutions but may not necessarily disengage cognitively. This
might, in part, explain why the same resolutions are readily reactivated each New Year.
These assumptions await further investigation.
5. Conclusions
Overall, the results indicate that trait levels of neither goal flexibility nor tenacity
support sustained pursuit of New Year resolutions. However, flexible goal pursuit (but
not tenacious goal pursuit) is associated with higher levels of mental wellbeing. Although
setting New Year resolutions is a popular activity in many cultures, our findings are consis-
tent with the folk wisdom that people are not particularly good at sticking to them. Future
research, using larger samples may benefit by focusing on the predictive role of alternative
trait characteristics on resolution stickability, in addition to goal-level characteristics such
as the extent to which resolutions are pursued for internalized reasons.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4
601/18/6/3084/s1, Table S1: Dropout analyses, comparing study completers (all phases) versus
non-completers on baseline TGP, FGA, WEMWS, Table S2: Tenacious Goal Pursuit, Flexible Goal
Adjustment, Resolution Commitment and Stickability Importance as predictors of T1 to T4 wellbeing,
Table S3: Tenacious Goal Pursuit, Flexible Goal Adjustment, Resolution Commitment and Importance
as predictors of T2 to T4 stickability, Table S4: Tenacious Goal Pursuit, Flexible Goal Adjustment, and
Resolution Orientation (approach vs. avoid) and Specificity (specific vs. general) as predictors of T1 to
T4 wellbeing, Table S5: Tenacious Goal Pursuit, Flexible Goal Adjustment, and Resolution Orientation
(approach vs. avoid) and Specificity (specific vs. general) as predictors of T2 to T4 stickability.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this research as listed: Conceptualisation (J.M.D.,
N.J.M., A.D.); Methodology (J.M.D., N.J.M., C.D.H., A.D., D.P.); qualtrics software design (J.M.D.,
N.J.M., C.D.H., D.P.); validation (J.M.D., C.D.H.); formal analysis (J.M.D., C.D.H.); investigation
(J.M.D., N.J.M., C.D.H., D.P.); data curation (J.M.D., C.D.H.); writing (J.M.D., C.D.H.); writing—
review and editing (J.M.D., N.J.M., C.D.H., A.D., D.P.); visualization (n/a); supervision (J.M.D.)
project administration (J.M.D.); funding acquisition (n/a). All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Edith Cowan
University, Australia (Reference, 22365) and by the University of Exeter, Psychology Research Ethics
Committee (Reference, eCLESPsy000868 v2.0).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Anonymous data was collected and save on an SPSS datafile. This
SPSS dataset will be deposited at Edith Cowan University’s data repository and accession numbers
will be made publically available prior to publication of the article.
Acknowledgments: We thank the participants who freely volunteered to participate in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 12 of 13
References
1. Sheldon, K.M.; Elliot, A.J. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 1999, 76, 482–497. [CrossRef]
2. Austin, J.T.; Vancouver, J.B. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process and content. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 120, 338–375.
[CrossRef]
3. Griffiths, M. 2016. Available online: https://www.iflscience.com/brain/psychology-new-year-s-resolutions/ (accessed on 28
December 2020).
4. Siltanen, S.; Rantanen, T.; Portegijs, E.; Tourunen, A.; Poranen-Clark, T.; Eronen, J.; Saajanaho, M. Association of tenacious goal
pursuit and flexible goal adjustment with out-of-home mobility among community-dwelling older people. Aging Clin. Exp. Res.
2019, 31, 1249–1256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Dickson, J.M.; Johnson, S.; Huntley, C.D.; Peckham, A.; Taylor, P.J. An integrative study of motivation and goal regulation
processes in subclinical anxiety, depression and hypomania. Psychiatry Res. 2017, 256, 6–12. [CrossRef]
6. Dickson, J.M.; Moberly, N.J.; O’Dea, C.; Field, M. Goal fluency, pessimism and disengagement in depression. PLoS ONE 2016, 11,
e0166259. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control process view. Psychol. Rev. 1990, 97,
19–35. [CrossRef]
8. Watkins, E. Dysregulation in level of goal and action identification across psychological disorders. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 31,
260–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Street, H. Exploring the role of conditional goal setting in depression. Clin. Psychol. 2001, 6, 16–23. [CrossRef]
10. Winch, A.; Moberly, N.J.; Dickson, J.M. Unique associations between anxiety, depression and motives for approach and avoidance
goal pursuit. Cog. Emot. 2015, 29, 1295–1305. [CrossRef]
11. Brandtstädter, J.; Renner, G. Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of
assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychol. Aging 1990, 5, 5–58. [CrossRef]
12. Kelly, R.E.; Wood, A.M.; Mansell, W. Flexible and tenacious goal pursuit lead to improving well-being in an aging population: A
ten-year cohort study. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2013, 25, 16–24. [CrossRef]
13. Brandtstädter, J.; Rothermund, K. The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Dev.
Rev. 2002, 22, 117–150. [CrossRef]
14. Bailly, N.; Martinent, G.; Ferrand, C.; Gana, K.; Joulain, M.; Maintier, C. Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment in
older people over 5 years: A latent profile transition analysis. Age Ageing 2016, 45, 287–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. World Health Organisation (WHO). Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response (accessed on 28 December 2020).
16. Dickson, J.M.; Moberly, N.J. Depression, anxiety, reduced facilitation in adolescents’ personal goal systems. Cognit. Ther. Res.
2010, 34, 576–581. [CrossRef]
17. Henselman, I.; Fleer, J.; Smink, A.; Van Sanderen, E.; Sanderman, R.; Ranchor, A.V. The Tenacious Goal Pursuit and Flexible Goal
Adjustment Scales: A validation study. Psych. Aging 2011, 26, 174–180. [CrossRef]
18. Tennant, R.; Hiller, L.; Fishwick, R.; Platt, S.; Joseph, S.; Weich, S.; Parkinson, J.; Secker, J.; Stewart-Brown, S. The Warwick-
Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2007, 5, 63.
[CrossRef]
19. Dickson, J.M.; Moberly, N.J. Reduced Specificity of Personal Goals and Explanations for Goal Attainment in Major Depression.
PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Dickson, J.M.; Moberly, N.J. Goal internalization and outcome expectancy in adolescent anxiety. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2013, 41,
389–397. [CrossRef]
21. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing.
Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [CrossRef]
22. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In Optimism & Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research,
and Practice; Chang, E.C., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 31–52.
23. Dickson, J.M.; Moberly, N.J.; Huntley, C.D. Rumination selectively mediates the association between actual-ideal (but not
actual-ought) self-discrepancy and anxious and depressive symptoms. Pers. Ind. Diff. 2019, 149, 94–99. [CrossRef]
24. Dempsey, R.C.; Eardley, K.; Dodd, A.L. The role of tenacious versus flexible goal pursuit in the vulnerability to bipolar disorder.
Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–8, in press. [CrossRef]
25. Heckhausen, J.; Wrosch, C.; Schulz, R. A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 32–60. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol.
2002, 57, 705–717. [CrossRef]
27. Kruglanski, A.W.; Shah, J.Y.; Fishbach, A.; Friedman, R.; Chun, W.Y.; Sleeth-Keppler, D. A Theory of Goal Systems. Adv. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 2002, 34, 331–378. [CrossRef]Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3084 13 of 13
28. Day, D.V.; Unsworth, K.L. Goals and self-regulation: Emerging perspectives across levels and time. In New Developments in Goal
Setting and Task Performance; Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., Eds.; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
pp. 158–176.
29. Höchli, B.; Brugger, A.; Messner, C. Making New Year’s Resolutions that Stick: Exploring how Superordinate and Subordinate
Goals Motivate Goal Pursuit. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2020, 12, 30–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]You can also read
